Dover Planning Board recommends ADU and site‑plan bylaw changes, splits on exemptions

The Dover Planning Board voted April 13 to recommend Town Meeting approval of two zoning articles that revise rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and recast the town's Partial and Full Site Plan Review process.

Town Planner Melissa M. SantucciRozzi presented the board with a final memo and Exhibit A outlining edits to Article 18 (§185‑43) and Article 19 (site plan review and several definition and use‑table changes). SantucciRozzi said the largest edit to the ADU article was moving the definition of “Principal Dwelling” into the definitions section; the proposed ADU standard caps an ADU at 50% of the principal dwelling’s gross floor area or 900 square feet, whichever is less. The draft also requires Board of Health approvals for ADU‑related renovations, says ADUs must use the same driveway opening as the principal dwelling, and prohibits ADUs from being used as short‑term rentals as defined in §185‑5.

On Article 18, the board first recorded a favorable recommendation on the amendments to §185‑43 and §185‑5 in an early roll‑call vote recorded 3‑0‑0. After further discussion and with full attendance, the board formally voted to close the public hearing and to make a favorable recommendation to Town Meeting on Article 18 (motion by Vice Chair Jody Shue, seconded by Member Val Lin); that motion passed unanimously, 4‑0‑0.

Article 19 rewrites §185‑36 to clarify Partial and Full Site Plan Review procedures, tighten review criteria, and recode the Schedule of Use Regulations to make the table more user friendly. SantucciRozzi told the board that a non‑substantive change was required to Use #39 (small‑ and medium‑scale ground‑mounted solar) to comply with state law. The revised §185‑36 includes new definitions for Expansion of Use, Intensification of Use and Change of Use, and expanded application and plan requirements for both Partial and Full Site Plan Review.

Board members debated exemptions listed in §185‑36(B)(4), which would exempt garages and sheds under a 1,015‑square‑foot perimeter and would exempt all inground pools and sports courts under 1,015 square feet. Member Val Lin expressed concern that exempting garages and sheds that large would reduce abutter transparency and urged separate consideration of each exemption; other members said smaller accessory structures should not require abutter input. The board took informal consensus votes that left Lin opposed to the sheds/garages exemption while approving the inground pools and sports courts exemption. The board then voted to recommend Article 19 as drafted (motion by Vice Chair Jody Shue, seconded by Member Val Lin); the motion passed on a 3‑1‑0 roll call (Yes: Chair Carol Lisbon, Vice Chair Jody Shue, Member Katie Williams; No: Member Val Lin).

During discussion, the Town Planner and counsel recommended more precise language for “Intensification of Use” to reduce subjectivity; SantucciRozzi said the board could revise the draft to say an intensification is one that “negatively impacts the neighborhood in any material respect” to clarify the standard. Resident commenter Tom Heer raised questions about requiring vertical dimensions for existing structures on plan submissions; SantucciRozzi explained the measurements help document site conditions and that the board can waive particular requirements when appropriate.

The Planning Board’s favorable recommendations move Articles 18 and 19 to the May Town Meeting warrant for final action. The board also signaled it will continue work on related definitions (including short‑term rentals), noise and lighting rules and other bylaw clarifications with a goal of presenting additional reforms at the 2027 Town Meeting.